 | | You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(URL) Canyon made by Noah's flood? I don't even know where to begin... Do even Creationists believe that? Yet supposedly, as stated in the article, Dubya supports that. This is the guy running the most powerful nation in the world--"Grand Canyon (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Two things -- One, it said Bush administration, not Dubbya himself. And two, it is quite common to have various novels of fiction and non-fiction pertaining to national monuments in the book stores at the visiting centers. They are probably (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Just further proof that Dubya is a blithering moron. The sad thing is that it says something about the number of blithering morons in this country that he could almost get elected in the first place. -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) I'd have to assume they wouldn't, but I dunno. I guess some do: (URL) funny-- they do give some actual evidence suggesting that certain areas were created 'in a catastrophe', and that there's inaccuracies in carbon dating, but not once is (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Okay, two things about this: One, the article makes this sound as if it was from Bush's own hand that this was allowed. Probably some bias there. But, this was from the administration. So, it could have been anyone under Bush acting to support (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Hi Avery: Thanks for the input re: sonar in the other thread. Regarding this book--is it presented as a work of science or a work of fiction? If the latter, then I don't really have a problem with it, as long as the Federal Parks Service would (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Hm. But the government DOES have business endorsing a book that would support the theory that the GC was created by erosion? Why should the government support NASA research (say), as opposed to religious research, apart from the actual (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) The problem as I understand it is that this is a widely regarded as a work of fiction (or nonsense?) by our own NPS geologists and educators, yet it is being sold in a manner which makes it appear that the NPS regards it as a legitimate (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Because geologic theory is based in testable science rather than non-testable religion, and the Fed's choice to endorse an article of religious faith is manifestly unconstitutional. Even the claim made elsewhere that Dubya himself didn't (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Although I doubt it's the case, what if the book were written using scientific methods? Let's suppose for a minute there were some evidence (albeit alternately explainable evidence via "regular" science) that supported the claim. The article I (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Because religious research shouldn't be confused with scientific research and it shouldn't pretend to be. One is legitimate science that can produce beneficial results (in medicine, engineering, technology etc) - which represents a gain to our (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Why's that a good question? I thought the govt. was supposed to be workin for us, not just to perpetuate itself. (...) Wow, you guys'll argue over just about anything. On a relative scale this seems about as vital as wrangling over whether you (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Honestly, that's a great question! Creationists have never actually submitted anything for peer review, so if the book were indeed written using scientific methods of inquiry, then it would be greatly beneficial to them to put it up for (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Well, that's not the point-- the point isn't that to date, religious science has been a joke, it's that "what if it weren't"? Should the fact that it just happens to be religious preclude a research project from going forward, even if it's (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) No we won't! How dare you accuse us of that! :) (...) You may certainly buy a new one. However, if you're looking to return your Lucky Jackalope Foot, you'll have to demonstrate that it had, and then lost its powers. Or you might just need to (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Well since any crackpot out there can make up his/her own theories, the first step to gaining scientific credibility is to present the theory for peer review - typically by submitting an article to "the literature" journals. This allows for (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Of course not. And you are correct that such projects are generally judged on merit. Personally I like the ones involving Near Death Experiences - although it should be noted in this case that this doesn't necessarily imply it's (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Yah, you see there. You are asking the questions that the government does not want answered. I learned a little bit of government thinking in that job, and they don't address issues like that. Yes, now that this has been publicized it is (...) (20 years ago, 22-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Ha ha ha, well, I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but the thought occurred to me that this almost seems to go into a realm related to Moral Relativism. Instead of seeing morals as relative, we are seeing the scientific evidence in (...) (20 years ago, 22-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) Excuse me for lamely replying to my own post, but... I had another thought and that was that the Creationists of course take the belief of God as a fundamental truth of the universe much in the same way you accept the nose on your face. So, (...) (20 years ago, 22-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
|
(...) And if we direct the government to fund said research (oh, say, a JPL probe to Neptune) then isn't that the government working for us? (...) Inasmuch as the same forces that want to have Biblical deluges offered up as "science" want to get (...) (20 years ago, 22-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
